Evangeline Omadto Case Digest

G.R. No. 207161, September 08, 2015

Y-I LEISURE PHILIPPINES, INC., YATS INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND Y-I CLUBS AND RESORTS,
INC., Petitioners, v. JAMES YU, Respondent.

The Facts
James Yu was a businessman, interested in purchasing golf and country club shares from Mt. Arayat
Development Co., Inc. (MADCI) which was a real estate development corporation. MADCI offered for sale
shares of a golf and country club located in the vicinity of Mt. Arayat in Arayat, Pampanga, for the price of
P550.00 per share. Relying on the representation of MADCI's brokers and sales agents, Yu bought 500
golf and 150 country club shares for a total price of P650,000.00 which he paid by installment. Upon full
payment of the shares to MADCI, Yu visited the supposed site of the golf and country club and discovered
that it was non-existent.
Yu filed with the RTC a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages with prayer for
preliminary attachment against MADCI and its president Rogelio Sangil (Sangil) to recover his payment.
In his transactions with MADCI, Yu alleged that he dealt with Sangil, who used MADCI's corporate
personality to defraud him.

RTC ruled that because MADCI did not deny its contractual obligation with Yu, it must be liable for
the return of his payments. The trial court also ruled that Sangil should be solidarily liable with MADCI
because he used the latter as a mere alter ego or business conduit. In two separate appeals, the parties
elevated the case to the CA.
The CA partly granted the appeals and modified the RTC decision by holding YIL and its
companies, YILPI and YICRI, jointly and severally, liable for the satisfaction of Yu's claim. The CA held
that the sale of lands between MADCI and YIL must be upheld because Yu failed to prove that it was
simulated or that fraud was employed.
The CA explained that YIL, YILPI and YICRI could not escape liability by simply invoking the
provision in the MOA that Sangil undertook the responsibility of paying all the creditors' claims for refund.
The provision was, in effect, a novation under Article 1293 of the Civil Code, specifically the substitution of
debtors. Considering that Yu, as creditor of MADCI, had no knowledge of the "change of debtors," the
MOA could not validly take effect against him. Accordingly, MADCI remained to be a debtor of Yu.
Anent Sangil's liability, the CA ruled that he could not use the separate corporate personality of
MADCI as a tool to evade his existing personal obligations under the MOA.
YIL and its companies, YILPI and YICRI, moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied
by the CA
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS YATS
GROUP SHOULD BE HELD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO RESPONDENT YU DESPITE
THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD IN THE SALE OF ASSETS AND BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF
PETITIONERS YATS GROUP.

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.
Upon Yus demand of return of his payment, MADCI could not return it anymore because all its assets
had been transferred. Through the acts of YIL, MADCI sold all its lands to YILPI and, subsequently to
YICRI. Thus, Yu now claims that the petitioners inherited the obligations of MADCI. On the other hand,
the petitioners counter that they did not assume such liabilities because the transfer of assets was not
committed in fraud of the MADCI's creditors. Hence, the issue at hand presents a complex question of
law - whether fraud must exist in the transfer of all the corporate assets in order for the transferee to
assume the liabilities of the transferor. To resolve this issue, a review of the laws and jurisprudence
concerning corporate assumption of liabilities must be undertaken.
Background on the corporate
assumption of liabilities
In the 1965 case of Nell v. Pacific Farms, Inc., the Court first pronounced the rule regarding the transfer
of all the assets of one corporation to another (hereafter referred to as the Nell Doctrine) as follows:
Generally, where one corporation sells or otherwise transfers all of its assets to another corporation, the
latter is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the transferor, except:
1. Where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such debts;
2. Where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the corporations;
3. Where the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation; and
4. Where the transaction is entered into fraudulently in order to escape liability for such
debts.

The Nell Doctrine states the general rule that the transfer of all the assets of a corporation to another shall
not render the latter liable to the liabilities of the transferor. If any of the above-cited exceptions are
present, then the transferee corporation shall assume the liabilities of the transferor.
Legal bases of the Nell Doctrine
An evaluation of our contract and corporation laws validates that the Nell Doctrine is fully supported by
Philippine statutes. The general rule expressed by the doctrine reflects the principle of relativity
under Article 1311 of the Civil Code. Contracts, including the rights and obligations arising therefrom, are
valid and binding only between the contracting parties and their successors-in-interest. Thus, despite the
sale of all corporate assets, the transferee corporation cannot be prejudiced as it is not in privity with the
contracts between the transferor corporation and its creditors.
Jurisprudential recognition of the
business-enterprise transfer
Jurisprudence has held that in a business-enterprise transfer, the transferee is liable for the debts and
liabilities of his transferor arising from the business enterprise conveyed. Many of the application of the
business-enterprise transfer have been related by the Court to the application of the piercing doctrine.

While the Corporation Code allows the transfer of all or substantially all the properties and assets of a
corporation, the transfer should not prejudice the creditors of the assignor. The only way the transfer can
proceed without prejudice to the creditors is to hold the assignee liable for the obligations of the
assignor. The acquisition by the assignee of all or substantially all of the assets of the assignor
necessarily includes the assumption of the assignor's liabilities, unless the creditors who did not
consent to the transfer choose to rescind the transfer on the ground of fraud. To allow an assignor to
transfer all its business, properties and assets without the consent of its creditors and without requiring
the assignee to assume the assignor's obligations will defraud the creditors. The assignment will place the
assignor's assets beyond the reach of its creditors.
Fraud is not an essential
consideration in a businessenterprise transfer
Notably, an evaluation of the relevant jurisprudence reveals that fraud is not an essential element for the
application of the business-enterprise transfer which the court disagrees. The exception of the Nell
doctrine provides that the transferee corporation assumes the debts and liabilities of the transferor
corporation because it is merely a continuation of the latter's business. A cursory reading of the exception
shows that it does not require the existence of fraud against the creditors before it takes full force and
effect. Indeed, under the Nell Doctrine, the transferee corporation may inherit the liabilities of the
transferor despite the lack of fraud due to the continuity of the latter's business.
The purpose of the business-enterprise transfer is to protect the creditors of the business by allowing
them a remedy against the new owner of the assets and business enterprise. Otherwise, creditors would
be left "holding the bag," because they may not be able to recover from the transferor who has
"disappeared with the loot," or against the transferee who can claim that he is a purchaser in good faith
and for value. Based on the foregoing, as the exception of the Nell doctrine relates to the protection of the
creditors of the transferor corporation, and does not depend on any deceit committed by the transferee
-corporation, then fraud is certainly not an element of the business enterprise doctrine.
Applicability of the
business-enterprise transfer
in the present case
Bearing in mind that fraud is not required to apply the business-enterprise transfer, the next issue to be
resolved is whether the petitioners indeed became a continuation of MADCI's business. Synthesizing
Section 40 and the previous rulings of this Court, it is apparent that the business-enterprise transfer rule
applies when two requisites concur: (a) the transferor corporation sells all or substantially all of its assets
to another entity; and (b) the transferee corporation continues the business of the transferor corporation.
Both requisites are present in this case.
MADCI was a development company which acquired properties in Magalang, Pampanga to be developed
into a golf course however, was then sold to YILPI, and then transferred to YICRI. Its sale to the
petitioners rendered it incapable of continuing its intended golf and country club business.
The MOA cannot
prejudice respondent
The MOA, which contains a provision that Sangil undertook to redeem MADCI proprietary shares sold to
third persons or settle in full all their claims for refund of payments, should not prejudice respondent Yu.
The CA correctly ruled that such provision constituted novation under Article 1293 of the Civil Code.
When there is a substitution of debtors, the creditor must consent to the same; otherwise, it shall not in
any way affect the creditor. In this case, it was established that Yu's consent was not secured in the
execution of the MOA. Thus, insofar as the respondent was concerned, the debtor remained to be

MADCI. And given that the assets and business of MADCI have been transferred to the petitioners, then
the latter shall be liable.
Free and Harmless Clause
The petitioners, however, are not left without recourse as they can invoke the free and harmless clause
under the MOA. In business-enterprise transfer, it is possible that the transferor and the transferee may
enter into a contractual stipulation stating that the transferee shall not be liable for any or all debts arising
from the business which were contracted prior to the time of transfer. Such stipulations are valid, but only
as to the transferor and the transferee. These stipulations, though, are not binding on the creditors of the
business enterprise who can still go after the transferee for the enforcement of the liabilities.
In the present case, the MOA stated that Sangil undertook to redeem MADCI proprietary shares sold to
third persons or settle in full all their claims for refund of payments. While this free and harmless clause
cannot affect respondent as a creditor, the petitioners may resort to this provision to recover damages in a
third-party complaint. Whether the petitioners would act against Sangil under this provision is their own
option.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 30, 2012 Decision and the April 29, 2013 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.